“B RITISH O UTRAGE !”
TheChesapeake-Leopard Affair
In 1807, a violent encounter between two warships of the U.S. Navy and the British Royal Navy pushed both nations to the brink of war. American public opinion was almost unanimous in its support for war. President Thomas Jefferson ultimately decided not to go to war at this time. He opted for a policy of economic embargo, which caused more harm to the United States than it did to Great Britain. The Chesapeake-Leopard affair serves as a prologue, as well as a contrast, to the War of 1812. The attack on the Chesapeake provided a simple casus belli,easily understood by the American public, and Virginians in particular, for the events occurred on their very doorstep. When war was finally declared in 1812, Virginians were not so supportive.
On June 22, 1807, the American frigate Chesapeake (40 guns) departed Hampton Roads for the Mediterranean. At 3 p.m., approximately three leagues off the Virginia Capes, she was hailed by HMS Leopard (52 guns), a fourth-rate man-of-war. The Leopard sent over a lieutenant, who was received by Commodore James Barron. (Chesapeake was commanded by Captain Gordon, but Barron, appointed to command U.S. naval forces in th e Mediterranean, was the senior officer aboard.) The lieutenant informed Barron he was searching for “runners”—Royal Navy deserters known to be aboard Chesapeake.The captain of the Leopard,Salusbury Pryce Humphreys, was under orders from Vice Admiral Berkeley (in command at Halifax) to apprehend these deserters.1
During the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain had an insatiable need for sailors. When recruiting parties failed to produce enough men, ship’s captains resorted to impressment. Press gangs were a familiar sight in British ports. But the Royal Navy also stopped ships on the high seas, and removed likely hands. They did not limit this practice to British merchantmen. Neutrals such as the United States were considered fair game. Service in the Royal Navy was despised by many. Sailors were desperate to escape life aboard a
floating hell, and would take any chance to do so. When Royal Navy ships visited Hampton Roads, several hands seized their opportunity and ran.
Barron was not about to let the Royal Navy search his ship. He told the lieutenant no runners were aboard Chesapeake.The British knew this to be false—the men they were looking for were well known to them. In February 1807, three seamen deserted HMS Melampus in Hampton Roads, using the captain’s gig to make good their escape. They promptly joined the U.S. Navy. These men were American citizens impressed into British service. William Ware, a Native American, came from Maryland. John Strachan (no relation to the Anglican clergyman and hero of the War of 1812) also hailed from the Old Line State. The third man, Daniel Martin, was an African American from Massachusetts.2 The British alleged these men were actually volunteers, rather than pressed men. (In the Royal Navy, pressed men were sometimes allowed to “volunteer,” to be eligible for a cash bounty.)3 A fourth man, Jenkins Ratford, formerly of HMS Halifax ,was a bona fide Briton. He made himself obnoxious to his erstwhile shipmates, openly taunting them while ashore.4 Such provocations were too much to bear for the proud Royal Navy.
After the lieutenant returned to Leopard,Humphreys hailed Barron by trumpet, rather arrogantly stating that “Commodore Barron must be aware that the orders of the [British] vice-admiral must be obeyed.”5 Humphreys repeated this message several times, and then sent a shot across Chesapeake’s bows. Then the shooting began in earnest. Leopard fired into Chesapeake for approximately 12 minutes. Twenty-one round shot pierced the American frigate’s hull. Her sails and rigging were heavily damaged by grapeshot. Chesapeake managed to fire one gun before striking her colors. She suffered three killed and 18 wounded (one mortally). A boarding party from Leopard took the four wanted men into custody.6 According to naval custom, Barron informed Humphreys that Chesapeake was now a British prize, but the Royal Navy captain refused to take possession: “My instructions have been obeyed, and I desire nothing more.”7 The British—rather belatedly—expressed sympathy and offered assistance. This was angrily rejected, and the Chesapeake limped back to Hampton Roads while Leopard rejoined the Royal Navy squadron in Lynnhaven Bay.” The Chesapeake-Leopard affair was greeted with outrage by Americans. Norfolk and Portsmouth citizens wore black crepe mourning bands for ten days, in honor of the dead Americans.8 War between Great Britain and the United States seemed imminent. Americans were almost unanimous in their resolve, if not desire, for war. Political dissent was nonexistent. The Virginia Argus observed the crisis “seems to have buried in oblivion all party spirit. Federalists and Republicans are united in expressing their abhorrence of the conduct of the perfidious nation, and in the resolution of encountering them in War to avenge the unparalleled insults and injuries which they have inflicted on our country.” 9
The city of Alexandria was well known for its Federalist sympathies. But the local newspaper, the Alexandria Daily Advertiser (later renamed the Daily Gazette), supported the Jefferson administration during the crisis. It began its account of the attack on the Chesapeake with these words: “BRITISH OUTRAGE! We give the public the particulars of the following outrage on the American flag, under the influence of feelings which, we are certain, are in unison with those entertained universally by our fellow citizens.”10 This is in sharp contrast to 1812. When the United States eventually declared war on Great Britain, popular support was distinctly lacking. Samuel Snowden, owner and editor of the Daily Advertiser,proved a bitter opponent of “Mr. Madison’s War.”
President Thomas Jefferson was quick to condemn the attack on Chesapeake.He noted that Americans had tried to maintain strict neutrality, but escalating British outrages could not go unpunished. Jefferson applauded the national unity in the face of this outrage. At the same time, he reminded citizens that the ultimate handling of the crisis would be in his hands:
There has been but one sentiment upon this occasion: the outrage is insulting to our national character beyond forbearance—Ample reparation must be made, but the mode of obtaining it ought to be left up to the Executive, who is confident of the support of the whole nation, if satisfaction is not given. It is not to be expected that the same unanimity will be found as to the means, tho’ all agree in the end.11
William H. Cabell served as governor of Virginia from 1805 to 1808. He received news of the Chesapeake-Leopard affair before the president, and took immediate action. On June 24, he sent orders to the militia commanders in Hampton and Norfolk, Colonel John Wray and Brigadier General Thomas Mathews. These orders commanded the militia officers to defend their cities by any means necessary. Governor Cabell also sent 1,500 small arms from the Virginia Arms Manufactory to Hampton Roads.12
Jefferson sent his first letter to Cabell regarding the affair on June 29. He called for cooperation between the state and federal executive branches. Federal assistance was somewhat slow in materializing, so, in the words of historian Edwin M. Gaines, “for the first two and one-half weeks following the sea engagement Cabell actually exercised sole authority over military operations in Virginia.”13 But Jefferson trusted his friend not to do anything rash. Cabell confirmed this trust when he reminded the fiery General Mathews that he was to retain a defensive posture. No offensive moves were to be made by the Americans.14
Jefferson had great trust in Cabell, but he also wanted reliable firsthand information. He asked William Tatham, an old acquaintance in Hampton Roads, to observe the British movements. Tatham was to send daily reports by post to the president.15 It was an inspired choice. The English-born Tatham was a man of many talents. He fought for the Americans during the Revolutionary
War. Postwar, he served in the North Carolina legislature. He was an accomplished civil engineer, and a passionate supporter of canals, which he believed would improve American commerce. He was also an experienced sailor. This skill served him well. Throughout the month of July, Tatham observed the British squadron on land and at sea, bringing his whaleboat well within range of the guns. It was a delicate—and potentially dangerous—assignment, but Tatham faithfully carried out Jefferson’s instructions.
On July 2, Jefferson issued his Chesapeake proclamation. He condemned the British conduct in the strongest terms, and argued that “hospitality under such circumstances ceases to be a duty.”16 He ordered “all armed vessels bearing commissions under the government of Great Britain now within the harbors or waters of the U.S. immediately and without delay to depart.” 17 If British ships did not leave American waters, all contact with them was prohibited, including food and supplies. American citizens violating this proclamation were liable to be prosecuted.18
St. Memin portrait of President Thomas Jefferson. This likeness, circa 184–5, shows Jefferson at the start of his second term (Library of Congress).
The day after the incident, a Committee of Correspondence met at Norfolk’s Eagle Tavern. General Mathews chaired the meeting. The minutes were widely pub lished in newspapers across the state, including the Virginia Argus.The committee met almost one week before the president issued his proclamation, but its resolutions share much in common with the executive communication. There fore, it can be concluded Jefferson approved of these resolutions.The committee members unanimously condemned the British attack as a violation of the laws of war. They resolved to sever all communication between British ships and the American shore. They also selflessly pledged “our lives and our properties to co-operate with the government in any measureswhich they may adopt, whether of vengeance or of retaliation.”19
The resolutions adopted by the committee offer insight into this shadowy period between war and peace. Both sides felt war was a distinct possibility, but waited for word from higher authorities before taking drastic steps. For instance, the Committee of Correspondence felt that a British officer, carrying dispatches for Colonel Hamilton, the British consul, should have been detained, for he did not observe protocol by hoisting a flag of truce. In fact, this officer was lucky to escape a beating at the hands of an American mob. Fortunately, Hamilton was well liked in Norfolk. According to the consul’s interpretation, hoisting a flag of truce was inappropriate, as war had not been declared. Only Hamilton’s reputation for sincerity kept the mob in check.20 Hamilton’s rapport with the community also prevented would-be arsonists from burning his house.21
The Committee of Correspondence resolved not to permit commerce with the British squadron. The Publick Ledger noted on July 3 that “there has been no communication with the British squadron in Lynnhaven-bay for some days.—This squadron begins to feel some serious inconvenience from the want of water and fresh provision.”22 The British commander, Commodore Douglas, responded with a rather undiplomatic letter addressed to the mayor of Norfolk. The contents of this letter created a sensation:
I beg leave to represent to you that having observed in the Newspapers a resolution made by a committee on the 29th ult. [June 29] Prohibiting and communication between His Britannick Majesty’s Consul at Norfolk, and his ships lying at anchor in Lynnhaven Bay; and this being a measure extremely hostile, not only in depriving the British Consul from discharging the duties of his office, but at the same time preventing me from obtaining that information so absolutely necessary for his majesty’s service. I am, therefore, determined, if this infringement is not immediately annulled, to prohibit every vessel bound either in or out of Norfolk, to proceed to their destination, until I know the pleasure of my government, or the commander in chief of this station. You must be perfectly aware that the British flag never has, nor will be insulted with impunity. You must also be aware that it has been, and is still in my power to obstruct the whole trade of the Chesapeake, since the late circumstance which I desisted from, trusting that general unanimity would be restored. Respecting the circumstance of the deserters, lately apprehended from the United States frigate Chesapeake, in my opinion, must be decided by the two governments alone.It therefore, rests with the inhabitants of Norfolk, either to engage in a war or remain on terms of peace.
Agreeable to my intentions, I have proceeded to Hampton Roads with the squadron under my command, to await your answer, which I trust you will favor me with, without delay.23
Mayor Richard E. Lee refused to be intimidated. After conferring with the aldermen, he quickly drafted a reply to Commodore Douglas:
I have received your menacing letter of yesterday. The day on which this answer is written [July 4], ought of itself prove to the subjects of your sovereign, that the
American people are not to be intimidated by menace, or induced to adopt any measures, except by a sense of their perfect propriety. Seduced by the false shew of security, they may sometimes be uperior and slaughtered, while unprepared to resist a supposed friend; that delusive security is now however passed for ever. The late occurrence has taught us to confide our safety no longer to any thing but our own force. We do not seek hostility, nor shall we avoid it. We are prepared for the worst you may attempt, and will do whatever shall be judged proper to repel force, whensoever your efforts shall render any act of ours necessary. Thus much for the threats of your letter, which can be considered in no other light than as addressed to the supposed fear of our citizens…
If you, sir, please to consider this act of individuals [Committee of Correspondence resolution to block British communications with shore] “extremely hostile,” and shall commence hostility without waiting the decision of our two governments, although you yourself acknowledge that it properly belongs to them alone to decide, the inhabitants of Norfolk will conform to your example and protect themselves against any lawless aggression which may be made upon their persons or property; they therefore leave it with you “either to engage in a war,” or “to remain on terms of peace” until the pleasure of our respective governments shall be known.24
Mayor Lee asked Littleton Waller Tazewell, a local politician and a future governor of Virginia, to deliver his reply. Tazewell delivered the letter as requested. The details of his meeting with Commodore Douglas were reported in the Publick Ledger.After reading Lee’s reply, Douglas began rapidly backpedaling. According to Tazewell, Douglas denied his letter contained overt threats. If it seemed that way to the mayor, it was the fault of Douglas’ clerk, who drafted the letter. Clearly, Douglas realized he had been intemperate in his choice of language (his flagship Bellona was named for the Roman goddess of war). While war might indeed be declared, it would be best to wait for instructions from home, or at least for orders from Halifax. Douglas said as much in his reply, in which he promised “that as far as I am individually concerned, every exertion shall be used that can, consistent with the honour and dignity of the British flag, tend to an amicable termination.”25
As Mayor Lee mentioned in his reply to Commodore Douglas, the date of his reply—Independence Day—held special significance for Americans. In Norfolk, the Fourth of July was ordinarily a time for merriment and good cheer. July 4, 1807, was instead devoted to military drill and parades.26 The commander of the 9th Brigade of militia invited those “not subject to the laws for regulating the militia (boys under 18 and men over 45) to volunteer for the duration of the crisis.”27 Considering the powerful British squadron menacingly anchored in the roadstead (Bellona,74; Triumph,74; Leopard, 52; and Melampus,36) the militia needed every man it could get. Patriotic citizens volunteered their slaves to make repairs to Fort Norfolk.28 The Norfolk Herald doubtless spoke for many with the following editorial, which was reprinted in the Alexandria Daily Advertiser:
Let us remember that we are MEN, and if we can do no better, let each man take his tree [like the Minutemen of ’76] and kill one. In the name of all that is holy, powerful, manly or just, are we to FEED THEM for KILLING US? Are we to suffer them to send a BOATLOAD of MURDERED CITIZENS ashore and take a LOAD of PROVISIONS in return? Are we to pay them, to hire them with the luxuries of our land, to cut our throats? Away with such words as COOLNESS and MODERATION, they are the cloak, the coverings of treachery,and we have heard too much, seen too much, and know whence this moderation proceeds—from people who would tie our hands and bend our heads to the butcher! Let them beware, let us have no more of this—no MODERATION now—the storm is up, and at the least varying of the wind it will overwhelm domestic treason in due course.29
The last part about domestic treason was likely a reference to the Federalists. But as previously noted, the Federalists in this case either supported the actions of the Jefferson administration, or kept their dissenting views to themselves. Considering the tone of editorials such as these—and the fact that it was reprinted in a Federalist newspaper—this was a wise course to follow.
In such a tense atmosphere, rumors abounded. The Norfolk Committee of Correspondence heard the British were planning an amphibious assault on Hampton. Four gunboats were dispatched to Hampton, and 300 citizens volunteered to man them. It was acknowledged there might not be any truth behind the rumor, but considering the unprovoked attack on Chesapeake,it was best to err on the side of caution.30 At the same time, a Hampton mob vented its anger by destroying 200 casks of water meant for the British squadron.31
The RichmondVirginia Argus joined in the rumor-mongering. On June 27, under the headline “Naval Despotism,” editor Samuel Pleasants claimed to have a copy of secret instructions from 1793. These were issued by none other than George III himself, and commanded his naval ships and privateers “to seize neutral vessels and cargoes contrary to the law of nations.” The Republican Pleasants included an attack on Federalists, claiming these orders “coerced” the United States into signing Jay’s Treaty. He urged all American printers to circulate copies of these illegal orders.32 It seems unlikely Pleasants had such orders in his profession; if he did, they were most likely forgeries. The printing of such sensational items gives a real indication of Virginians’ mood during the crisis.
One incident that was not mere rumor occurred in early July, and was included in the July 8 edition of the Washington National Intelligencer.Vice President George Clinton and his daughter, aboard a cutter, were fired upon off the Virginia Capes. No casualties were suffered, but tempers flared. Those not already serving in the state militia requested Governor Cabell find room for them in the ranks.33
The Argus carried an account of further British aggression on July 6, from a report made to the Norfolk Collector’s Office. The Cynthia Ann,a
schooner out of Folly Landing, was fired on by a 14- to 16-gun British vessel. The British missed, and Captain Harrison, master of the Cynthia Ann,continued on his way. Suddenly, a British tender appeared immediately ahead. The tender dispatched a boarding party. The leader of the party called Harrison a “damned rascal,” and demanded to know why he did not stop when fired upon by the first vessel. Har rison replied a foreign navy had no reason to stop him in his own waters. After further verbal abuse, including wishes that the gunfire had sunk the Cynthia Ann,the British boarders demanded a tow back to their craft. Harrison towed the British tars back to their vessel, and was then allowed to go on his way. 34
The Cynthia Ann was not an isolated incident. The Argus carried further reports of British stoppages of shipping in Hampton Roads. The barque Petersburg was stopped and boarded, but Captain Davis was treated with great courtesy. On the other hand, Captain Chapman of the Ruby reported he was “treated rudely.” Both ships were eventually allowed to pass. The item concluded rather obviously, “If the British commander is disposed for peace, he should cease to stop vessels in the waters of the United States.”35
When the Chesapeake-Leopard affair occurred, the treason trial of Aaron Burr was the big story. The trial was held in Richmond, but the threat of war with Britain overshadowed the proceedings in court. When Commodore Douglas brought his squadron into Hampton Roads, Governor Cabell dispatched reinforcements to the threatened sector. He wrote the commanding officers of several brigades of mili tia: “I have the request that you will with a ll possible expedition march your troops to Norfolk for the purpose of repelling an invasion.” From the Richmond area, four companies of infantry and two companies of cavalry were dispatched to Norfolk.36
The prospect of war with Great Britain inspired Richmond resident William Wirt with dreams of martial glory. Wirt was a 35-year-old lawyer, serving as prosecutor in the Burr case, and a future attorney general of the United States. He wrote his friend Dabney Carr, telling him of plans to raise a volunteer legion of brigade strength.37 This legion was not meant for duty in the Tidewater; rather, it was to be part of a force mobilized for the invasion of Canada. Wirt planned to be a colonel of one of the regiments. He felt that Canada and Nova Scotia could be conquered in “a single campaign,” and that the war would not last longer than one year.38
It might seem strange that the possibility of war—and the threat of maritime invasion—led to calls from Virginians to invade Canada. The Alexandria Daily Advertiser discussed the possibility at length, declaring “the conquest of Canada ought therefore in the first instance to be the object of this country.” The conquest of Canada seemed a rather simple matter to this armchair strategist. An army of 15,000 to 20,000 should suffice, as British military strength in Canada was estimated at 4,000 men. Conquering Canada
would also eliminate the Indian menace once and for all, for it was well known that these tribes were in the pay of the British. The Daily Advertiser also envisioned an expedition to the West Indies. Ten thousand militiamen would depart Charleston, South Carolina, for the Bahamas, which would quickly fall to such a large force. American possession of the Bahamas would deny them to the Royal Navy, thus diminishing the threat to American merchantmen.39
In this editorial from the Daily Advertiser,we see the roots of the divided strategy of the War of 1812. The War of 1812 was ostensibly a war to protect sailors’ rights and to guarantee free trade. But in 1807, we see plans for the conquest of Canada openly discussed in American newspapers. One might argue that the best defense is a bold offense, but where were the troops to be found for this war of conquest? The author places a dangerous overreliance on untrained militia. In the event of war, these men would be hard-pressed to defend their homes, let alone conquer British territory. All of these points were confirmed during the War of 1812.
After Mayor Lee called his bluff, Commodore Douglas withdrew his squadron to Lynnhaven Bay.40 In light of these developments, Governor Cabell cancelled the order sending 500 militia of White’s Brigade to Hampton. General Mathews was confident that his own 9th Brigade, in addition to the earlier reinforcements from Richmond and Petersburg, were “amply sufficient to repel any attack that can be made by any force which can be spared from the British squadron.” 41 The British withdrawal from Hampton Roads indicated a less aggressive posture on their part.
Still, tensions remained high. The Alexandria Daily Advertiser carried news of a skirmish near Cape Henry on July 17. A British watering party of five men—two midshipmen and three ratings—landed on the east side of the cape. A detachment of Kempsville militia guarded this sector. They opened fire on the party, forcing them to retreat to nearby woods. The militiame n surrounded the woods at dawn. The British, seeing no hope of escape, surrendered.42 At first, they were placed in custody of a picket of Petersburg cavalry, led by a young corporal named Winfield Scott. After sharing a sumptuous repast—including wine and porter—with their prisoners, they were taken to the home of local resident Lemuel Cornick, while local authorities awaited further orders on what to do with them.43
The British sailors were ordered held by Governor Cabell pending further instructions from Washington.44 Tatham suggested to Jefferson that the British prisoners be held as hostages in exchange for the four seamen removed from Chesapeake 45 Not surprisingly, Commodore Douglas was “greatly incensed” by the capture of his men. In retaliation, five Americans were seized from a coastal craft. Douglas vowed “he would capture every American vessel going in or out, until the British prisoners were restored.”46
On July 24, Jefferson advised—but did not order—Cabell to return the British prisoners. In his letter to the governor, the president recommended this course of action as “we should avoid every act which may precipitate immediate and general war,” for the nation needed time to prepare. At the same time, Jefferson praised “the vigilance and activity” of the militia cavalrymen. Also, the return of the captives was not to be interpreted as a retreat from the presidential proclamation. If force became necessary, the Virginians were “unequivocally to understand that force is to be employed without reservation or hesitation.”47
Governor Cabell concurred with President Jefferson’s recommendation. The prisoners were duly returned to their ship. Though no casualties were suffered in the skirmish, war between Great Britain and the United States remained a distinct possibility. Both sides had to tread lightly. One false move by either side could result in open conflict.
By late July, the militiamen from Richmond and Petersburg had to be relieved by fresh troops. Samuel Pleasants of the Argus hoped the relief would be prompt, for many of the capitol’s citizen soldiers were seriously ill. “It is with no small degree of pain we learn that a considerable number are already on the sick list, and everybody knows how destructive to the health of strangers a residence in the vicinity of Norfolk even for a short time is at this season of the year.”48
Public support remained high throughout the summer. Town meetings were held all across Virginia, which passed resolutions expressing support for the administration and solidarity with the citizens of Hampton Roads. A typical example is from the meeting at Charles City Courthouse, July 13, 1807. It was chaired by John Tyler, father of the future president, and governor of Virginia from 1808 to 1811. The committee unanimously praised Jefferson’s handling of the crisis. It approved of the “dignified answer” of Mayor Lee to Commodore Douglas’ “insulting and menacing let ter.” The citizens of Charles City also praised “the manly and spirited conduct of our fellow citizens of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Hampton.” The committee waxed eloquent at the outrage it felt over the attack on the Chesapeake:
What sort of feelings must Englishmen have? One hour to be in habits of peace and friendly intercourse, not only with Commodore Barron, but with the citizens of Norfolk (that hospitable port from which no stranger returns unsatisfied) and in another within view of our harbors, to commit so deliberate and wicked a murder on an unsuspecting, unoffending crew! Slaves and tools of a fool and tyrant, we uperior your country’s destiny; what has it to boast of now but treachery, bribery, hypocrisy, and murder? We will plant a dagger in the heart of it. The vengeance of your own people shall be upon it!
The committee also expressed confidence that the United States could survive without British trade, declaring that “your commerce has not corrupted the
great mass of our people, we can exist without it, and will return to habits of economy, industry, and our own internal resources.”49
The Alexandria Daily Advertiser echoed the sentiments of the Charles City convention, declaring, “The effects of war are not to be dreaded so much as the peace we have experienced for some time past. We want no supplies and will require none. We can at all times subsist upon the means which the country affords. With these advantages, we have no occasion to ask or pray for peace.”50 Jefferson eventually pursued a policy of embargo, putting to the test the assertions of the Charles City committee that the United States could survive without trade with Britain and France. Unfortunately, the embargo was a failure.
In the meantime, the federal government made preparations for war. Heavy artillery, including two ten-inch mortars, was dispatched to Norfolk. Captain Stephen Decatur, hero of Tripoli, was given command of all naval forces in Hampton Roads (Barron was relieved from duty following the Chesapeake-Leopard affair, pending an inquiry into the incident). One hundred thousand militiamen were to be raised from all the states.51 Virginia had the largest population in the Union. Its quota was placed at 11,563 men, comprising 8,673 infantrymen, 1,156 riflemen, 1,156 cavalrymen, and 578 artillerymen. The state governors were directed “to organize, arm and equip according to law, and hold in readiness to march at a moment’s warning, their respective proportions of one hundred thousand militia.” 52
Commodore Decatur mostly had gunboats under his command, but by the end of July, Chesapeake was once again ready for action. On July 2, Naval Constructor Josiah Fox arrived with 20 shipwrights to repair the badly damaged frigate.53 Fox kept his men hard at work. By July 27, the Chesapeake,which had been “little better than a hulk, without a mast of shroud standing,” was “compleatly ready for sea.” The Publick Ledger could not resist adding “that this circumstance ought to prove to the navy department the superior advantages of this place over Washington for naval equipments. Had the Chesapeake been sent to Washington for refit, we do not believe she would have been ready for sea under six weeks or two months from this date.” 54
Ultimately, Great Britain and the United States did not go to war in 1807. As the summer waned, tensions relaxed. By August 5, Governor Cabell ordered all militia on 24-hour alert to stand down. The garrison of Norfolk was reduced to one company of infantry. A single troop of horsemen patrolled the shore. No doubt, this was welcome news to the sick militiamen, who could return home to their families. By the end of October, the British squadron was withdrawn from its position near the Virginia Capes.55
On August 31, 1807, Jenkins Ratford, the native-born Englishman seized from the Chesapeake,was executed at Halifax, following a court martial for
desertion. He was hanged from the yardarm of his old ship, HMS Halifax. 56 The three Americans were sentenced to 500 lashes each, but this was suspended. Ware died in captivity before he could be repatriated, but Martin and Strachan were returned to Boston on July 11, 1812, after the outbreak of war.57 The return of the Americans was part of a deal made on November 12, 1811, in which the British disavowed the action taken by the Leopard.They also agreed to pay reparations, though they do not seem to have fulfilled this part of the agreement.58 Captain Humphreys never commanded a ship again, though he was eventually promoted to rear admiral in the 1830s.59
Commodore Barron also paid a heavy price for the Chesapeake-Leopard affair. A court martial charged him with neglect of duty. As Benson Lossing described it, “she [Chesapeake] had gone to sea without preparations for hostile service, either in the drilling of her men or in perfecting her equipments. She was littered and lumbered by various objects, and her crew had been mustered only three times.”60 After the affair, all American men-of-war left port ready for action. Barron was suspended from the service for five years, but he did not return to active duty until 1824. In the meantime, the fallout continued. A quarrel with Decatur over the affair led to a duel (1820) in which Barron killed Decatur. For his part in the affair, Captain Gordon received a reprimand. Gordon fought a duel in January 1810 with the editor of the Baltimore Federal Republican over comments related to the affair. Gordon received a severe wound in the abdomen. Though he eventually returned to service, his health never fully recovered. Gordon died on September 6, 1816. 61 Lieutenant Hall of the Marines also received a reprimand. The gunner was dismissed from the service.62
As for the ships involved in the incident, during the War of 1812 Chesapeake had a moderately successful cruise in West Indian and African waters (December 13, 1812, to April 9, 1813), capturing five British merchantmen.63 She returned to Boston, which she departed once again on June 1, 1813. On that date, Chesapeake fought one of the most famous frigate duels in history, against HMS Shannon.After 15 bloody minutes, Chesapeake once again struck her colors. Leopard also continued in service, though she was downgraded to a troop transport. It was in this capacity that she was wrecked in the St. Lawrence River near Anticosti Island, on June 18, 1814. No lives were lost.64
The Chesapeake-Leopard affair brought the United States and Great Britain to the brink of war. Had war broken out in 1807, Virginia would likely have been on the front lines. Most residents of the Old Dominion would have supported war at this time. An unprovoked attack on a U.S. Navy frigate, just a few miles off the Virginia Capes, provided a simple, straightforward casus belli.Cooler heads prevailed, and the crisis was averted. But tensions between the two nations remained. During the years of uneasy peace that followed,
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
"What America owed abroad can never be computed; it is enough that it reached an enormous sum, to refund which, even under favorable circumstances, would have taken years of effort; actually forced payment brought the nation to the brink of a convulsion. Perhaps no people ever faced such an emergency and paid, without recourse to war. America triumphed through her inventive and administrative genius. Brought to a white heat under compression, the industrial system of the Union suddenly fused into a homogeneous mass. One day, without warning, the gigantic mechanism operated, and two hemispheres vibrated with the shock. In March, 1897, the vast consolidation of mines, foundries, railroads, and steamship companies, centralized at Pittsburg, began producing steel rails at $18 the ton, and at a bound America bestrode the world. She had won her great wager with fate. … The end seems only a question of time. Europe is doomed not only to buy her raw material abroad, but to pay the cost of transport. And Europe knew this instinctively in March, 1897, and nerved herself for resistance. Her best hope, next to a victorious war, lay in imitating America, and in organizing a system of transportation which would open up the East.
"Carnegie achieved the new industrial revolution in March, 1897. Within a twelvemonth the rival nations had emptied themselves upon the shore of the Yellow Sea. In November Germany seized Kiao-chau, a month later the Russians occupied Port Arthur, and the following April the English appropriated Wei-hai-wei; but the fact to remember is that just 400 miles inland, due west of Kiao-chau, lies Tszechau, the centre, according to Richthofen, of the richest coal and iron deposits in existence. There with the rude methods used by the Chinese, coal actually sells at 13 cents the ton. Thus it has come to pass that the problem now being attacked by all the statesmen, soldiers, scientific men, and engineers of the two eastern continents is whether Russia, Germany, France, England, and Japan, combined or separately, can ever bring these resources on the market in competition with the United States."
B. Adams,
The New Industrial Revolution (Atlantic Monthly, February, 1901).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (January-May).
Arbitration Treaty with Great Britain rejected by the Senate.
See, (in this volume),
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
The correspondence which took place between the governments of the United States and Great Britain, on the subject of an arbitration of the Venezuela Boundary dispute, having led to the revival of a project for the negotiation of a general treaty of arbitration, which the late American Secretary of State, Mr. Gresham, had broached to the British government in the spring of 1895, the terms of such an arrangement were carefully and fully discussed between Secretary Olney and Lord Salisbury, during the year 1896, and an agreement was reached which took form in a solemn compact for the settlement by arbitration of all matters in difference between the two countries, signed at Washington on the 11th of January, 1897. The treaty thus framed was as follows:
"ARTICLE I.
The High Contracting Parties agree to submit to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of this Treaty all questions in difference between them which they may fail to adjust by diplomatic negotiation.
"ARTICLE II.
All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims which do not in the aggregate exceed £100,000 in amount, and which do not involve the determination of territorial claims, shall be dealt with and decided by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted as provided in the next following Article. In this Article and in
Article IV the words 'groups of pecuniary claims' mean pecuniary claims by one or more persons arising out of the same transactions or involving the same issues of law and fact.'
"ARTICLE III.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall nominate one arbitrator who shall be a jurist of repute and the two arbitrators so nominated shall within two months of the date of their nomination select an umpire. In case they shall fail to do so within the limit of time above mentioned, the umpire shall be appointed by agreement between the Members for the time being of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Members for the time being of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Great Britain, each nominating body acting by a majority. In case they shall fail to agree upon an umpire within three months of the date of an application made to them in that behalf by the High Contracting Parties or either of them, the umpire shall be selected in the manner provided for in Article X. The person so selected shall be the President of the Tribunal and the award of the majority of the Members thereof shall be final.
{578}
"ARTICLE IV.
All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims which shall exceed £100,000 in amount and all other matters in difference, in respect of which either of the High Contracting Parties shall have rights against the other under Treaty or otherwise, provided that such matters in difference do not involve the determination of territorial claims, shall be dealt with and decided by an Arbitral Tribunal, constituted as provided in the next following Article.
"ARTICLE V.
Any subject of Arbitration described in Article IV shall be
submitted to the Tribunal provided for by Article III, the award of which Tribunal, if unanimous, shall be final. If not unanimous either of the High Contracting Parties may within six months from the date of the award demand a review thereof. In such case the matter in controversy shall be submitted to an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of five jurists of repute, no one of whom shall have been a member of the Tribunal whose award is to be reviewed and who shall be selected as follows, viz: two by each of the High Contracting Parties, and one, to act as umpire, by the four thus nominated and to be chosen within three months after the date of their nomination. In case they shall fail to choose an umpire within the limit of time above-mentioned, the umpire shall be appointed by agreement between the Nominating Bodies designated in Article III acting in the manner therein provided. In case they shall fail to agree upon an umpire within three months of the date of an application made to them in that behalf by the High Contracting Parties or either of them, the umpire shall be selected in the manner provided for in Article X. The person so selected shall be the President of the Tribunal and the award of the majority of the Members thereof shall be final.
"ARTICLE VI.
Any controversy which shall involve the determination of territorial claims shall be submitted to a Tribunal composed of six members, three of whom (subject to the provisions of Article VIII) shall be Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States or Justices of the Circuit Courts to be nominated by the President of the United States, and the other three of whom (subject to the provisions of Article VIII) shall be Judges of the British Supreme Court of Judicature or Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be nominated by Her Britannic Majesty, whose award by a majority of not less than five to one shall be final. In case of an award made by less than the prescribed majority, the award shall also be final unless either Power shall, within three months after the award has been reported, protest that the
same is erroneous, in which case the award shall be of no validity. In the event of an award made by less than the prescribed majority and protested as above provided, or if the members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be equally divided, there shall be no recourse to hostile measures of any description until the mediation of one or more friendly Powers has been invited by one or both of the High Contracting Parties.
"ARTICLE VII.
Objections to the jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under this Treaty shall not be taken except as provided in this Article. If before the close of the hearing upon a claim submitted to an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Article III or Article V either of the High Contracting Parties shall move such Tribunal to decide, and thereupon it shall decide that the determination of such claim necessarily involves the decision of a disputed question of principle of grave general importance affecting the national rights of such party as distinguished from the private rights whereof it is merely the international representative, the jurisdiction of such Arbitral Tribunal over such claim shall cease and the same shall be dealt with by arbitration under Article VI.
"ARTICLE VIII.
In cases where the question involved is one which concerns a particular State or Territory of the United States, it shall be open to the President of the United States to appoint a judicial officer of such State or Territory to be one of the Arbitrators under Article III or Article V or Article VI. In like manner in cases where the question involved is one which concerns a British Colony or possession, it shall be open to Her Britannic Majesty to appoint a judicial officer of such Colony or possession to be one of the Arbitrators under Article III or Article V or Article VI.
"ARTICLE IX.
Territorial claims in this Treaty shall include all claims to territory and all claims involving questions of servitudes, rights of navigation and of access, fisheries and all rights and interests necessary to the control and enjoyment of the territory claimed by either of the High Contracting Parties.
"ARTICLE X.
If in any case the nominating bodies designated in Articles III and V shall fail to agree upon an Umpire in accordance with the provisions of the said Articles, the Umpire shall be appointed by His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway. Either of the High Contracting Parties, however, may at any time give notice to the other that, by reason of material changes in conditions as existing at the date of this Treaty, it is of opinion that a substitute for His Majesty should be chosen either for all cases to arise under the Treaty or for a particular specified case already arisen, and thereupon the High Contracting Parties shall at once proceed to agree upon such substitute to act either in all cases to arise under the Treaty or in the particular case specified as may be indicated by said notice; provided, however, that such notice shall have no effect upon an Arbitration already begun by the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal under Article III. The High Contracting Parties shall also at once proceed to nominate a substitute for His Majesty in the event that His Majesty shall at any time notify them of his desire to be relieved from the functions graciously accepted by him under this Treaty either for all cases to arise thereunder or for any particular specified case already arisen.
"ARTICLE XI.
In case of the death, absence or incapacity to serve of any Arbitrator or Umpire, or in the event of any Arbitrator or Umpire omitting or declining or ceasing to act as such, another Arbitrator or Umpire shall be forthwith appointed in his place and stead in the manner provided for with regard to the original appointment.
{579}
"ARTICLE XII.
Each Government shall pay its own agent and provide for the proper remuneration of the counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrators appointed by it and for the expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Arbitral Tribunal. All other expenses connected with any Arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties. Provided, however, that, if in any case the essential matter of difference submitted to arbitration is the right of one of the High Contracting Parties to receive disavowals of or apologies for acts or defaults of the other not resulting in substantial pecuniary injury, the Arbitral Tribunal finally disposing of the said matter shall direct whether any of the expenses of the successful party shall be borne by the unsuccessful party, and if so to what extent.
"ARTICLE XIII.
The time and place of meeting of an Arbitral Tribunal and all arrangements for the hearing and all questions of procedure shall be decided by the Tribunal itself. Each Arbitral Tribunal shall keep a correct record of its proceedings and may appoint and employ all necessary officers and agents. The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from the close of the arguments on both sides. It shall be made in writing and dated and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who may assent to it. The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered to each of the High Contracting Parties through their respective agents.
"ARTICLE XIV.
This Treaty shall remain in force for five years from the date at which it shall come into operation, and further until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties shall have given notice to the other of
its wish to terminate the same.
"ARTICLE XV.
The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by Her Britannic Majesty; and the mutual exchange of ratifications shall take place in Washington or in London within six months of the date hereof or earlier if possible."
United States, 54th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Document Number 63.
Public feeling in both countries gave joyful welcome to this nobly conceived treaty when it was announced. All that was best in English sentiment and American sentiment had been shuddering at the thought of possible war between the kindred peoples, and thanked God for what promised some certitude that no dispute would be pushed to that barbarous appeal. Only the mean thought and temper of either country was provoked to opposition; but, unhappily, the meaner temper and the narrower and more ignorant opinion on one side of the sea had been getting so strong a representation in the United States Senate as to prove capable of much mischief there, on this and other matters of most serious public concern. When the great covenant of peace went to that body for approval, there were senators who found it offensive to them because it came from the hands of President Cleveland and Secretary Olney; and there were other senators whose dignity was hurt by the eager impatience with which the public voice cried out for their ratifying vote; and still others there were who looked with official jealousy at the project of an arbitral tribunal which might sometimes take something from senatorial functions in foreign affairs. And the combination of pitiful motives had strength enough to baffle the high hopes and defeat the will of the American people.
Of the public feeling thus outraged, the following is one expression of the time, among many which it would be possible to quote:
Many people "are represented by influential papers like the St. Paul 'Pioneer Press' and the Minneapolis 'Journal,' the latter declaring that it is humiliating to think that, widely as the treaty is favored throughout the country, a few ill-natured men in the Senate have the power to delay ratification. In the Central West the feeling is generally strong for arbitration, if we may judge from the Chicago 'Times-Herald,' the St. Louis 'Republic,' the Indianapolis 'Journal,' and the Cleveland 'Leader.' In the South there are such cheering reports as this from the Memphis 'Scimetar'; 'If the treaty now under consideration in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should fail of ratification, public opinion in this country would demand that the incoming Administration provide another embodying the same vital principle.' In the East the sentiment in favor of immediate ratification of the original draft has been almost universal, the only two journals of note differing from this being the New York 'Sun' and the Washington 'Post.' The trend of opinion is shown in the adoption by the Massachusetts House of Representatives of an endorsement by a vote of 141 to 11. An important meeting took place last week in Washington in favor of ratification. The speakers were ex-Secretary of State Foster, Mr. G. G. Hubbard, Professor B. L. Whitman, ex-Senator J. B. Henderson, ex-Governor Stanard, and Justice Brewer, of the Supreme Court. The last named said; 'I do not believe in saying to the gentlemen charged with the duty of considering carefully that treaty, that "you must vote for it." There is something in my own nature which, when anybody says to me "you must," causes something to run up my spinal column which says "I won't." It is the Senate's duty to consider that treaty carefully, and when I say that, I say it is no trespass upon their rights for American citizens to express their views of that treaty. What are the errors and losses incidental to arbitration compared to
the horrors of war? What are a few million dollars of wrongful damages in comparison to the sacrifice of thousands of human lives?'"
The Outlook, February 6, 1897.
"This treaty was greeted with widespread favor in the press, but was antagonized at once in the Senate by the jingo element and by the personal adversaries of the administration. The committee on foreign relations reported the draft favorably, but with certain amendments, on February 1. The ensuing debate soon revealed that a vote on ratification could not be obtained before March 4, and the whole matter was dropped. At the opening of the new Congress the Senate Committee again considered the treaty and reported it, with amendments, on March 18. During two weeks' discussion the Senate adopted the committee's amendments and also others, with the result that the draft was radically transformed.
{580}
Instead of the general reference of all disputes to the tribunals, it was provided that any difference 'which, in the judgment of either power, materially affects its honor or its domestic or foreign policy,' should be submitted to arbitration only by special agreement; that no question should be submitted save with the consent of the Senate in its treaty-making capacity; and that no claim of a British subject against a state or territory of the United States should be submitted under any circumstances. The first of these changes was due mainly to the objection that without it the Monroe Doctrine might be subjected to arbitration; the second to the sensitiveness of senators as to their constitutional functions in foreign relations; and the third to a desire to protect states against claims on their defaulted bonds. Other changes modified materially the method of appointing the arbitrators for the United States, and struck out entirely the designation of the King of Sweden as umpire. Even with these amendments, the opposition to the treaty was not overcome; and the final vote on ratification, taken May 5, resulted in its rejection, the vote standing 43 to 26, less than two-thirds in the affirmative. Thirty Republicans and 13 Democrats voted for the
treaty; 8 Republicans, 12 Democrats and 6 Populists against it."
Political Science Quarterly, June, 1897.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (March).
Inauguration of President McKinley.
Leading topics of the inaugural address.
The President's Cabinet.
The inauguration of President McKinley was performed with the customary ceremonies on the 4th of March. In his inaugural address, the new President laid somewhat less emphasis than might have been expected on the need of measures for reforming the monetary system of the country, but strongly urged that instant steps be taken to increase the revenues of the government by a return to higher tariff charges. "With adequate revenue secured," he argued, "but not until then, we can enter upon such changes in our fiscal laws as will, while insuring safety and volume to our money, no longer impose upon the government the necessity of maintaining so large a gold reserve, with its attendant and inevitable temptations to speculation. Most of our financial laws are the outgrowth of experience and trial, and should not be amended without investigation and demonstration of the wisdom of the proposed changes. We must be both 'sure we are right' and 'make haste slowly.' …
"The question of international bimetallism will have early and earnest attention. It will be my constant endeavor to secure it by cooperation with the other great commercial powers of the world. Until that condition is realized, when the parity between our gold and silver money springs from and is supported by the relative value of the two metals, the value of the silver already coined, and of that which may hereafter be coined, must be kept constantly at par with gold by every
resource at our command. The credit of the government, the integrity of its currency, and the inviolability of its obligations must be preserved. This was the commanding verdict of the people, and it will not be unheeded.
"Economy is demanded in every branch of the government at all times, but especially in periods like the present of depression in business and distress among the people. The severest economy must be observed in all public expenditures, and extravagance stopped wherever it is found, and prevented wherever in the future it may be developed. If the revenues are to remain as now, the only relief that can come must be from decreased expenditures. But the present must not become the permanent condition of the government. It has been our uniform practice to retire, not increase, our outstanding obligations; and this policy must again be resumed and vigorously enforced. Our revenues should always be large enough to meet with ease and promptness not only our current needs and the principal and interest of the public debt, but to make proper and liberal provision for that most deserving body of public creditors, the soldiers and sailors and the widows and orphans who are the pensioners of the United States. …
"A deficiency is inevitable so long as the expenditures of the government exceed its receipts. It can only be met by loans or an increased revenue. While a large annual surplus of revenue may invite waste and extravagance, inadequate revenue creates distrust and undermines public and private credit. Neither should be encouraged. Between more loans and more revenue there ought to be but one opinion. We should have more revenue, and that without delay, hindrance, or postponement. A surplus in the treasury created by loans is not a permanent or safe reliance. It will suffice while it lasts, but it cannot last long while the outlays of the government are greater than its receipts, as has been the case during the last two years.
… The best way for the government to maintain its credit is to
pay as it goes not by resorting to loans, but by keeping out of debt through an adequate income secured by a system of taxation, external, or internal, or both. It is the settled policy of the government, pursued from the beginning and practiced by all parties and administrations, to raise the bulk of our revenue from taxes upon foreign productions entering the United States for sale and consumption, and avoiding, for the most part, every form of direct taxation except in time of war.
"The country is clearly opposed to any needless additions to the subjects of internal taxation, and is committed by its latest popular utterance to the system of tariff taxation. There can be no misunderstanding either about the principle upon which this tariff taxation shall be levied. Nothing has ever been made plainer at a general election than that the controlling principle in the raising of revenue from duties on imports is zealous care for American interests and American labor. The people have declared that such legislation should be had as will give ample protection and encouragement to the industries and the development of our country. … The paramount duty of congress is to stop deficiencies by the restoration of that protective legislation which has always been the firmest prop of the treasury. The passage of such a law or laws would strengthen the credit of the government both at home and abroad, and go far toward stopping the drain upon the gold reserve held for the redemption of our currency, which has been heavy and well-nigh constant for several years. In the revision of the tariff, especial attention should be given to the re-enactment and extension of the reciprocity principle of the law of 1890, under which so great a stimulus was given to our foreign trade in new and advantageous markets for our surplus agricultural and manufactured products."
{581}
Without effect, the incoming President urged the ratification
of the treaty of arbitration with Great Britain, negotiated by his predecessor and still pending in the Senate. In concluding his address he announced his intention to convene Congress in extra session, saying: "The condition of the public treasury demands the immediate consideration of congress. It alone has the power to provide revenue for the government. Not to convene it under such circumstances, I can view in no other sense than the neglect of a plain duty."
On the day following his inauguration, the President sent to the Senate the following nominations for his Cabinet, which were confirmed:
Secretary of State, John Sherman of Ohio; Secretary of the Treasury, Lyman J. Gage of Illinois; Secretary of War, Russel A. Alger of Michigan; Attorney-General, Joseph McKenna of California; Postmaster-General, James A. Gary of Maryland; Secretary of the Navy, John D. Long of Massachusetts; Secretary of the Interior, Cornelius N. Bliss of New York; Secretary of Agriculture, James Wilson of Iowa.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (March-July).
Passage of the Dingley Tariff Act.
Carrying out an intention announced in his Inaugural Address, President McKinley called Congress together in extra session on the 15th of March, asking for immediate action to increase the revenue of the government by increased duties, "so levied upon foreign products as to preserve the home market, so far as possible, to our own producers." In his Inaugural Address the President had expressed the understanding of his party as to the chief meaning of the late election, by saying that "the country is … committed by its latest popular utterance to the system of tariff taxation. … The people have declared that such legislation should be had as will give ample protection and encouragement to the industries and development of our
country. … The paramount duty of Congress is to stop deficiencies by the restoration of that protective legislation which has always been the firmest prop of the treasury." To the majority in both Houses of Congress these views were entirely acceptable, and they were acted upon at once. The Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in the previous Congress had already prepared a comprehensive new tariff bill, which it passed on to its successor. This ready-made bill was reported to the House on the first day of the session, by Mr. Dingley, chairman of the newly appointed committee, as he had been of the one before it. Debate on the measure began a week later, and was controlled by a fixed programme, which required it to be ended on the 31st of March. The bill was then passed, by a vote of 205 against 121. Of the action of the Senate upon it, and of the main features of the bill as it was finally shaped and became law, the following is a succinct account:
"The bill, referred at once to the Senate Committee on Finance, was reported after a month, on May 8, with important amendments. There was an attempt to impose some purely revenue duties, and, as to the protective duties, the tendency was towards lower rates than in the House bill, though on certain articles, such as wools of low grade, hides, and others (of which more will be said presently), the drift was the other way. The Senate, however, paid much less respect than the House to the recommendations of the committee in charge. In the course of two months, from May 4 to July 7, it went over the tariff bill item by item, amending without restraint, often in a perfunctory manner, and not infrequently with the outcome settled by the accident of attendance on the particular day; on the whole, with a tendency to retain the higher rates of the House bill. As passed finally by the Senate on July 7, the bill, though it contained some 872 amendments, followed the plan of the House Committee rather than that of the Senate Committee. As usual, it went to a Conference Committee. In the various compromises and
adjustments in the Senate and in the Conference Committee there was little sign of the deliberate plan and method which the House had shown, and the details of the act were settled in no less haphazard fashion than has been the case with other tariff measures. As patched up by the Conference Committee, the bill was promptly passed by both branches of Congress, and became law on July 24. In what manner these political conditions affected the character of the act will appear from a consideration of the more important specific changes.
"First and foremost was the reimposition of the duties on wool. As the repeal of these duties had been the one important change made by the act of 1894, so their restoration was the salient feature in the act of 1897. … Clothing wool was subjected once more to a duty of 11 cents a pound, combing wool to one of 12 cents. On carpet wool there were new graded duties, heavier than any ever before levied. If its value was 12 cents a pound or less the duty was 4 cents; if over 12 cents, the duty was 7 cents. … The duties on carpet wool, as has already been noted, were made higher than ever before. In the House the rates of the act of 1890 had been retained; but in the Senate new and higher rates were inserted. … They were demanded by the Senators from some States in the Far West, especially from Idaho and Montana. … They [the Senators in question] needed to be placated and they succeeded in getting higher duties on the cheap carpet wools, on the plea of encouragement for the comparatively coarse clothing wool of their ranches. … The same complications that led to the high duty on carpet wool brought about a duty on hides. This rawest of raw materials had been on the free list for just a quarter of a century, since 1872, when the duty of the war days had been repealed. … But here, again, the Senators from the ranching States were able to dictate terms. … In the Senate a duty of 20 per cent. was tacked on. The rate was reduced to 15 per cent. in the Conference Committee, and so remains in the act. The restored duties on wool necessarily brought in their train the old system of high compensating duties on woollens.
… In the main, the result was a restoration of the rates of the act of 1890. There was some upward movement almost all along the line; and the ad valorem duty alone, on the classes of fabrics which are most largely imported, crept up to 55 per cent. …
{582}
"On cotton goods the general tendency was to impose duties lower than those of 1890. This was indicated by the drag-net rate, on manufactures of cotton not otherwise provided for, which had been 50 per cent. in 1890, and was 45 per cent. in 1897. On two large classes of textile goods new and distinctly higher duties were imposed, on silks and linens. … The mode of gradation was to levy the duties according to the amount of pure silk contained in the goods. The duties were fixed by the pound, being lowest all goods containing a small proportion of pure silk, and rising as that proportion became larger; with the proviso that in no case should the duty be less than 50 per cent. … Thus, the duty on certain kinds of silks was $1.30 cents per pound, if they contained 45 per cent in weight of silk; but advanced suddenly to $2.25, if they contained more than 45 per cent. … On linens another step of the same kind was taken, specific duties being substituted here also for ad-valorem. … Linens were graded somewhat as cottons had been graded since 1861, according to the fineness of the goods as indicated by the number of threads to the square inch. If the number of threads was 60 or less per square inch, the duty was 1¾ cents a square yard; if the threads were between 60 and 120, the duty was 2¾ cents; and so on, plus 30 per cent. ad-valorem duty in all cases. But finer linen goods, unless otherwise specially provided for, were treated leniently. If the weight was small (less than 4½ ounces per yard), the duty was but 35 per cent. On the other hand, linen laces, or articles trimmed with lace or embroidery, were dutiable at 60 percent., an advance at 10 per cent. over the rate of 1890. … It was inevitable, under the political conditions of the
session, that in this schedule something should again be attempted for the farmer; and, accordingly, we find a substantial duty on flax. The rate of the act of 1890 was restored, 3 cents a pound on prepared flax, in place of the rate of 1½ cents imposed by the act of 1894. …
"On chinaware the rates of 1890 were restored. The duty on the finer qualities which are chiefly imported had been lowered to 35 per cent. in 1894, and was now once more put at 60 per cent. On glassware, also, the general ad-valorem rate, which had been reduced to 35 per cent. in 1894, was again fixed at 45 per cent., as in 1890. Similarly the specific duties on the cheaper grades of window-glass and plate-glass, which had been lowered in 1894, were raised to the figures of 1890. … The metal schedules in the act of 1897 showed in the main a striking contrast with the textile schedules. Important advances of duty were made on many textiles, and in some cases rates went considerably higher even than those of 1890. But on most metals, and especially on iron and steel, duties were left very much as they had been in 1894. … On steel rails there was even a slight reduction from the rate of 1894 $6.72 per ton instead of $7.84. On coal there was a compromise rate. The duty had been 75 cents a ton in 1890, and 40 cents in 1894; it was now fixed at 67 cents. On the other hand, as to certain manufactures of iron and steel farther advanced beyond the crude stage, there was a return to rates very similar to those of 1890. Thus, on pocket cutlery, razors, guns, we find once more the system of combined ad-valorem and specific duties, graded according to the value of the article. … Copper remained on the free list, where it had been put in 1894. … For good or ill the copper duty had worked out all its effects years before. On the other hand, the duties on lead and on lead ore went up to the point at which they stood in 1890. Here we have once more the signs of concession to the silver Republicans of the far West. … The duty on tin plate, a bone of contention under the act of 1890, was disposed of, with little debate, by the imposition of a comparatively moderate
duty. …
"A part of the act which aroused much public attention and which had an important bearing on its financial yield was the sugar schedule the duties on sugar, raw and refined. … The act of 1890 had admitted raw sugar free, while that of 1894 had imposed a duty of 40 per cent. ad valorem. … The price of raw sugar had maintained its downward tendency; and the duty of 40 per cent. had been equivalent in 1896 to less than one cent a pound. In the act of 1897 the duty was made specific, and was practically doubled. Beginning with a rate of one cent a pound on sugar tested to contain 75 per cent., it advanced by stages until on sugar testing 95 per cent. (the usual content of commercial raw sugar) it reached 1.65 cents per pound. The higher rate thus imposed was certain to yield a considerable increase of revenue. Much was said also of the protection now afforded to the beet sugar industry of the West. That industry, however, was still of small dimensions and uncertain future. … On refined sugar, the duty was made 1.95 cents per pound, which, as compared with raw sugar testing 100 per cent., left a protection for the domestic refiner, i. e., for the Sugar 'Trust,' of 1/8 of one cent a pound. Some intricate calculation would be necessary to make out whether this 'differential' for the refining interest was more or less than in the act of 1894; but, having regard to the effect of the substitution of specific for ad-valorem duties, the Trust was no more favored by the act of 1897 than by its predecessor, and even somewhat less favored. The changes which this part of the tariff act underwent in the two Houses are not without significance." In the bill passed by the House. "the so-called differential, or protection to the refiners, was one-eighth of a cent per pound. In the Senate there was an attempt at serious amendment. The influence of the Sugar Trust in the Senate had long been great. How secured, whether through party contributions, entangling alliances, or coarse bribery, the public could not know; but certainly great, as the course of legislation in that body demonstrated." The Senate attempted
